Oakley sued the commissioners, Madison Twp. and others in federal court claiming the action trampled on his property rights. Magistrate Karen Litkovitz recently filed her recommendation to dismiss the case against the county.
“In sum, the Court finds that construing the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing they possess a “legitimate claim of entitlement” or a “justifiable expectation” in approval of their application for rezoning and a preliminary BPUD,” Litkovitz wrote. “Accordingly, plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim fails on this basis.”
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Dlott must approve the recommendation before the case will officially be over. Oakley could not be reached for comment but his attorney Scott Phillips — who warned the commissioners during the public hearing a denial would spark a lawsuit — was given two weeks to file an objection.
“We are reviewing the Court’s order and will make a determination in the near future on how to proceed,” Phillips told the Journal-News.
The Butler County Planning Commission and the county Rural Zoning Commission denied the rezoning request. Neighbors opposed the expansion, citing concerns over noise, traffic and other problems associated with a development of this size and Oakley himself.
John Pruett, who owns Triangle Fishing Lake on Franklin-Madison Road adjacent to Land of Illusion, said the expansion would ruin his business and Oakley has been a “bad neighbor, he doesn’t try to work with us.”
“We have a really great neighborhood and Brett didn’t try to talk to any of them,” Pruett said “Could you imagine that massive $200 million park going in right behind your house, say 75 yards from your house. Could you imagine 50 yards behind your house, that going in. I’ve invested $1 million in Triangle Fishing Lake, $1 million. It would ruin my business within months.”
When they denied the rezoning request commissioners Cindy Carpenter and T.C. Rogers said the plan doesn’t match the township’s land use plan and would have a negative impact on neighbors.
“The high density commercial, recreational uses proposed in the preliminary development plan are likely to adversely impact the existing land uses and have detrimental effects on the surrounding rural and residential developments,” Rogers said. “Particularly with respect to the development’s density and intensity.”
In the lawsuit Oakley claimed he withdrew his original plans to address concerns of county planning staff and residents, such as removing the amusement park, creating a greater greenspace buffer, reduced the maximum height of structures and the amount of parking.
Commissioner Don Dixon said they are pleased, “it’s always good when you prevail in a case, you hate to be there in the first place but it turns out we and our staff were right.”
Another neighbor, Matt Richardson, said “I’m ecstatic” when he learned about the magistrate’s recommendation.
“There would be no rest for anybody in the surrounding community, more traffic, more noises, sound effects, trash in our yards, property values keep declining,” Richardson said. “It’s a great outcome.”
After the expansion plans were denied Oakley filed another federal lawsuit against the township over its noise laws.
“The noise resolution is facially unconstitutional because it fails to sufficiently identify what conduct is outlawed. It also fails to sufficiently inform any Madison Township resident or business who is subject to the regulation,” the lawsuit read. “The Noise Resolution has also been applied unconstitutionally against Mr. Oakley and his companies. Enforcement of the Noise Resolution had never previously occurred — that is, until Mr. Oakley sought to expand Land of Illusion. This is illegal.”
That case was settled last fall and Township Trustee Brian McGuire said they had to pay a $1,000 fine for a meeting violation during the case and Oakley’s attorney’s fees that totaled $6,000. The township’s insurance company paid all but the $1,500 deductible. They also agreed to pass a new, more specific noise ordinance.
“It gives us a better ability to watch that and it gives the sheriff a better ability about where and how they can check that and make sure they’re following the law,” McGuire said.
About the Author
